Blog

  • PR problem.

    I’ve just ordered the book “unChristian” after reading about the recent survey by the Barna group. Basically, the survey shows that people “outside” Christianity have a very negative perception of Christianity and that the distribution of outsiders with negative views is skewed towards the young. A book excerpt on the Barma Web site suggests that these “outsiders” (which include non-Christian believers, atheists, agnostics, and those with no religious affiliation) make up almost 67 million Americans, with 34 million aged 18-41. The message is clear. Negative perceptions of Christianity are widespread, particularly among the young.

    “Currently, however, just 16% of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a “good impression” of Christianity.

    One of the groups hit hardest by the criticism is evangelicals. Such believers have always been viewed with skepticism in the broader culture. However, those negative views are crystallizing and intensifying among young non-Christians. The new study shows that only 3% of 16 – to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals.

    While Christianity has typically generated an uneven reputation, the research shows that many of the most common critiques are becoming more concentrated. The study explored twenty specific images related to Christianity, including ten favorable and ten unfavorable perceptions. Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) – representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians.”

    Of course the evangelicals, who’ve built their empire on hate, intolerance and fear mongering use non-Christian’s natural reaction to feed their paranoia, not to learn the value of humility, kindness and love.

    91% of the nation’s evangelicals believe that “Americans are becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity.” Among senior pastors, half contend that “ministry is more difficult than ever before because people are increasingly hostile and negative toward Christianity.”

    Even in crisis, there’s no room for introspection or self doubt, except, thankfully, among the young.

    Among young Christians, many of the negative images generated significant traction. Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.

    Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a “bigger sin” than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians

    My experience has been that there are two types of Christians. The militant, ruthless, in your face sort who hate anything not in their mold, and the kind loving kind who’s lives and morals are examples that you want to emulate. Pat Robertson threatening the citizens of Dover, PA versus Jimmy Carter building houses, helping the poor and teaching Sunday school. The militant sort despise the loving sort as much as they despise atheists and other infidels. Militants snap to decide right and wrong and view the world in black and white with no shades of gray. They are willing to tolerate any injustice from those they view as right, and commit any injustice against those they view as wrong. The personal attacks, and malignant accusations protesting Jimmy Carter’s book on Palestinian treatment are a typical example, as are the public comments of any web site attracting their attention. The militant sort want to be in charge and to force others to accept their morality, and they have had disproportionate power for far too long. This public perception is the natural result. Expect them to launch a massive marketing campaign rather than change as a reaction to this study.

  • How does Science keep going?

    I just finished reading an essay that won Seed Magazine’s contest regarding “What does it mean to be scientifically literate in the 21st Century?”

    In it, Thomas Martin wrote, with apparent dismay, of his well prepared, intellectually capable students:

    A noticeable portion of those students also believe in the literal truth of certain ancient accounts of earth’s history that, to put it bluntly, directly contradict mountains of well-established data from geology, climatology, and biology.

    I share his dismay.

    Whenever I encounter a brilliant person who functions in a scientific/engineering world, yet believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, I am startled. How can someone believe in numbers, yet say something like “oil comes from Noah’s flood” or (without proof) “carbon isotope ratios haven’t always been the same” or “God changed the laws of physics when he put the rainbow in the sky for Noah.” Ask such a believer to explain how all the worlds animals fit on Noah’s ark, and they will postulate incredibly rapid differentiation from “kinds” of animals, and at the same time deny speciation through mutation. (By the way, this is a wonderful discussion of fundamentalists and Noah’s Ark). Fundamentalism is a stupefying display of will power over contradiction and curiosity. How can they not think through the implications of “changing the laws of physics” yet be able to function in the world of engineering?

    What’s even more stupefying is that science continues to work despite people with such ideas being in power. Is it possible to look at the Bush administration’s scientific gerrymandering and not wonder how US science can continue to function? Look at the religious currents of our history and then consider all the other versions of prejudice, pettiness and ignorance that also struggle to deny truth and maintain some status quo. How on earth did we make progress?

    Dr. Martin argues that progress comes through publicly pitting egos and intellects against one another. That within the world of science we demand evidence, and we encourage the destruction of hypothesis after hypothesis. Survival of the fittest ideas builds a self correcting system functioning despite the foibles of its followers.

    Somehow I find that encouraging. There is hope, regardless of who is in charge. And I still believe it’s difficult to argue with the facts of the physical world.